Irrigineni
Venkata Krishna & Ors. Vs. Govt. of A.P. & ANR. [2009] INSC 1711 (9
November 2009)
Judgment
CIVIL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.7479 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C)
No.27031/2008) Irrigineni Venkata Krishna & Others ...Appellants Versus
Government of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.
7480-7481 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27992-27993 of 2008) CIVIL
APPEAL NOS.7482-7484 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 30419-30421 of 2008)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7485 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 30860 of 2008)
ORDER
1.
Leave granted.
2.
The Division Bench in its judgment dated August 29, 2008, out of
which the present group of seven appeals arises, has relied upon the judgment
of this Court in Basic Education Board, U.P. vs. Upendra Rai and Others [(2008)
3 SCC 432] in holding that the regulations framed under the National Council
for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for short, `NCTE Act') do not bind the State
Government in the matter of fixation of qualifications for teachers in formal
schools. This is what the High Court said :
"......Following
said judgment of the Apex Court in UPENDRA RAI's case (1 supra), we are of the
view that the judgment of the Tribunal is un-sustainable and is liable to be
set aside insofar as holding that NCTE Act has binding nature on the State
Government in the matter of fixation of qualifications for teachers in formal
schools. In the circumstances, we find force in the contentions of the
Government that the Central Regulations framed by NCTE purportedly made under
clause (d) (i) of Sub-section (2) of Section 32 read with section 12(d) of the
NCTE Act, 1993 are not applicable or extended to formal school, and that it is
the discretion of recruiting agency to prescribe the necessary qualification
for the SGT posts."
3.
In Upendra Rai, this Court held in paragraphs 19 and 22 of the
report thus :
"19.
A perusal of the NCTE Act shows that this Act was made to regulate the
teachers' training system and the teachers' training institutes in the country.
It may be mentioned that there are two types of educational institutions -- (1)
ordinary educational institutions like primary schools, high schools,
intermediate colleges and universities, and (2) teachers' training institutes.
The NCTE Act only deals with the second category of institutions viz. teachers'
training institutes. It has nothing to do with the ordinary educational
institutions referred to above. Hence, the qualification for appointment as
teacher in the ordinary educational institutions like the primary school,
cannot be prescribed under the NCTE Act, and the essential qualifications are
prescribed by the local Acts and Rules in each State. In U.P. the essential
qualification for appointment as a primary school teacher in a junior basic
school is prescribed by Rule 8 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service
Rules, 1981 which have been framed under the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972. A
person who 2 does not have the qualification mentioned in Rule 8 of the aforesaid
Rules cannot validly be appointed as an Assistant Master or Assistant Mistress
in a junior basic school."
20.................
21................
22. It
may be mentioned that the word "institution" is defined in Section
2(e) of the NCTE Act to mean an institution which offers courses or training in
teachers' education. Thus, the NCTE Act does not deal with the ordinary
educational institutions like primary schools, high schools, intermediate
college or university. The word "institution" as defined in Section
2(2) [sic 2(e)] only means teachers' training institutes and not the ordinary
educational institutions.
Hence, it
is only the teachers' training institutions which have to seek grant of
recognition or continuation of recognition from the Regional Committee. The
ordinary educational institutions do not have to seek any such recognition or
continuation under the NCTE Act. In fact, the NCTE Act does not relate to the
ordinary educational institutions at all.
We,
therefore, fail to understand how it can be said that the NCTE Act overrides
the U.P. Basic Education Act and the Rules made thereunder. In fact, the two
Acts operate in altogether two different fields. The NCTE Act deals with the
teachers' training institutions while the U.P. Basic Education Act deals with
the ordinary primary schools in U.P. and not any teachers' training institute.
The argument of learned counsel for the respondent is thus wholly
misconceived."
4.
The aforesaid reasoning and conclusion in Upendra Rai have been
assailed by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and it was submitted
that Upendra Rai does not lay down the correct law that NCTE Act only deals
with teachers training institutes; that it has nothing to do with the ordinary
educational institutions and that the qualification for appointment as teacher
in the ordinary educational institutions 3 like the primary school cannot be
prescribed under the NCTE Act.
5.
Having given our thoughtful consideration, in our view, it would
be in fitness of things, if these appeals are heard by a three-Judge Bench for
authoritative pronouncement on the following questions of law :
1.
Whether NCTE Act only deals with the teachers' training institutes and the
power conferred upon the National Council for Teachers' Education under section
12(d) of that Act in laying down guidelines in respect of minimum
qualifications for a person to be employed as a teacher is confined to such
institutes i.e., teachers' training institutes ?
2. If
answer to the aforesaid question is in negative, whether the Regulations framed
in exercise of the powers under Section 32(2)(d)(i) read with Section 12(d) of
NCTE Act by the National Council for Teacher Education laying down
qualifications for employment of teachers in primary schools is binding on the
state government and in view thereof, the state government is denuded of its
authority to enact qualifications for appointment as teachers in primary
schools? 4
6.
Let these appeals be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of
India for appropriate directions. The parties shall be at liberty to apply for
expeditious hearing of these appeals.
........................J (Tarun Chatterjee)
............. ...........J (R. M. Lodha)
New Delhi
November 9, 2009.
Back
